(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.26 2015나310

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.26 2015나310

주위토지통행권확인 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff B's conjunctive claim shall be revoked.

Defendant C is against Plaintiff B.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

However, to the Plaintiff “A” on the seventh 10th day of the judgment of the first instance court, this part of the judgment is written by the following: “A” owned by the Defendant “A” and “B” on the part of the Defendant “B”, “ from the fourth to the sixth to the sixth (the part of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim) on the 6th day of the judgment of the first instance court, and the following judgments shall be added on the 9th day of the judgment of the first instance court to the third day:

[Supplementary part] "2. Judgment on the plaintiff B's claim

A. As to the primary claim, Plaintiff B sets up a farmer on the land of this case, one’s own ownership, and the Plaintiff B asserts that the right of passage, such as the entries in the primary claim of 3 meters wide so as to allow entry into and exit from the farm machinery, such as trainers, etc. in order to transport grain and fertilizers, should be recognized.

Although the land category No. 1 of the instant case owned by Plaintiff B is called “the answer,” it cannot be deemed that the current status or method of use of the instant land No. 1 is or is preparing for it, even if the evidence revealed in the record.

Rather, as a topography with slope, trees and miscellaneous trees are left close to forests and fields.

Furthermore, even if there is an intention to cultivate it in the future and cultivate a farmer, it can be recognized within the scope of use in accordance with the current usage of land in determining the right to passage over surrounding land, and it cannot be determined in preparation for future use.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da30993, Oct. 26, 2006). Accordingly, Plaintiff B’s primary claim that Plaintiff B requires a passage of 3 meters wide to the land of this case cannot be accepted.

B. As to the conjunctive claim, the Plaintiff B as above.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 10. 26. 선고 2005다30993 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018. 05. 31. 선고 2017누88871 판결

-광주지방법원 2015.10.30 2014나11983

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2014나66337

-서울고등법원 2017. 10. 10. 선고 2017누45348 판결

-광주지방법원 2015.03.27 2014나9935